Fran and I had a three-hour discussion/debate about religion today while reading Dawkins’ The God Delusion and preparing for our Easter family gathering tomorrow afternoon. Two of our topics were 1) a lot of folks will go to Easter services tomorrow (or Passover recently) more from cultural habit than any sincere religious belief. Does this make any sense? Is there any honesty in it? and 2) according to many Christians (including the aforesaid Easter attenders), Quakers are not truly religious but heretical (and so Fran’s relatives hanged them in Boston). I’ll be at Meeting tomorrow morning as usual, but Easter Sunday is not a special event for Quakers. For Quakers, as a matter of religious faith and practice, each and every day should be celebrated as much as Easter. Additionally, my type of Quakers speak of the gift of continuing spiritual revelation and not of a bodily resurrection. There’s some interesting biblical support for this view, but I must say that I’ve never met anyone who would change his/her belief in the face of a close reading of the earliest texts. The texts themselves have no significance unless we find them a catalyst for spiritual growth. FOR A SUBSTANTIAL TREATISE ON MY RELIGIOUS THINKING, SEE COMMENT #2.
April 11, 2009
March 18, 2009
Is It Appropriate for a Christian Institution to Support a Military Unit on Its Campus?
Is It Appropriate for a Christian Institution to Support a Military Unit on Its Campus?
Presented by Paul Sheldon & Joseph Betz, on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 12:30-1:20 p.m., in Room 300, SAC.
The life of Jesus brings a new covenant between God and man. The Prince of Peace tells us to put away the sword, trust in the Armor of God, and to love our enemies. If we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, which do we put first when these two appear to conflict? Until the time of Constantine, Christianity functioned apart from the Roman government, and complicity was minimal. How has the Christian message of love and forgiveness changed in the intervening centuries? What are the responsibilities of the academic Christian community in this regard? If you have questions, please contact paul.sheldon@villanova.edu.
***
The announcement above was distributed to all Villanova faculty and staff via the Campus Currents page, and in addition was sent to (more…)
January 29, 2009
Journey of a Quaker Marriage (Published in Friends Journal June 2009)
A Quaker wedding may appear to be a relatively simple affair. During a Meeting for Worship for Marriage, a couple publicly declares their love and continuing commitment to one another. Nothing more is required. However, what Quakers reject in formalisms and ceremonial trappings, they more than compensate for in preparation, and that is especially true for significant life events such as marriage. A couple who wishes to be married under the care of a meeting is required to seek spiritual guidance concerning how they understand their current relationship, what they want it to become, and how they can best help it develop. When they feel they have achieved this understanding, a Clearness Committee tests their leading for marriage. This is no simple task but an extraordinary undertaking, valuable for its practical contribution to a successful marriage as well as for the spiritual enrichment of the couple as a family unit and as individuals.
My wife and I had many lively discussions in the course of writing our vows and discussing what they meant in the context of our intended marriage. We agreed that a basic requirement was that our marriage be an open and honest relationship between equals. Without a base of equal power and commitment, any attempt at this is fatally compromised. This sense of an open marriage should not be confused with the so-called “open” marriages of the 70’s that skirted marital responsibilities in the name of freedom.
We asked ourselves whether anyone could honestly promise to love a partner forever. We acknowledged that love can never be totally secure. Marriage does not change that fact. The heart follows its own course, and we would not pretend to promise the heart. We considered that perhaps it is preferable to make an ideal promise and fall short, because the promise provides a clear goal. Ultimately we realized that change is inevitable and can be seen as an opportunity for love to grow, not as something to be feared.
We acknowledged that the root of Quaker marriage is spiritual responsibility. The root of love is continuing revelation. You must accept spiritual responsibility in marriage for the continuing revelation of love. Although love is spontaneous, with mutual seeking a couple can construct the contexts that favor love’s growth and development. At the same time, we recognized that even the best-intended spiritual seeking is not necessarily rightly led. If either of us ever felt the need, we would call upon our Clearness Committee to help us test the source of significant leadings. Such testings can generate valuable insights to help guide a successful marriage.
A loving relationship represents commitment to the partner, not ownership. Because we are still growing as individuals, what we should wish for our spouses is no less than we would wish for our children. As I said to Fran at our wedding, “My love is intended not to encumber your freedom, but to support you along your life path, so that you may live fully and authentically.”
I experience my love for Fran as unconditional love. I find this to be a life-changing feeling. It does not mean that I never get angry. Fran and I are blessed to be amazingly well matched, but we are not perfect. I do believe that perfect love, in the sense of being forgiving, understanding, and having total confidence in one’s love, is achievable. Such love blesses both the giver and the receiver, and even the world beyond.
I have long been an antiwar activist, our marriage is a source of inspiration and empowerment for my work in this area. My love for my wife leads me to understand that war is totally wrong because it destroys the lives of people who also love and are loved. This is an example of how the continuing revelation within marriage becomes part of the evidence of God’s love for all humankind, and how the marriage partners become a channel for expressing this love in the world.
Fran and Paul have shared their lives for seven years, and they publicly declared their marriage at Lansdowne Friends Meeting (PA) in October 2005.
January 28, 2009
Thoughts, Ideas, and Principles
In response to a query on my Facebook page, I posted twenty-five “Thoughts, ideas, and principles” recently. Since this material might not be readily accesible by some, I have added it as a comment below for those who don’t have Facebook accounts.
September 23, 2008
“Who Would Jesus Train To Kill” Window Sign
In response to a visit this evening concerning a sign in my window (see title above), I wrote the following email to my Department Chairperson. OSA refers to Order of Saint Augustine. There is more information and a picture at my website www.peacefulways.com/ (click on Conscience and Militarism).
Hello Tom,
It was good to speak with you a few minutes ago in reference to my being visited a few minutes earlier by Corporal Hall of Villanova Security, his presence at my door being at the request of certain members of the OSA complaining about my sign. It was good to confirm that you have spoken previously with Fr. Peter concerning my sign, as have I, and to confirm that his response was not of a critical nature. In fact, my sign has generated some meaningful interaction with a number of members of religious orders on campus, including members of the OSA. No one has ever questioned the appropriateness of my placing it in my window. I believe it poses a relevant question for each to answer in his/her own heart — it does not propose any specific answer. My website www.peacefulways.com/ provides further information.
What is my response to learning that some members of OSA appear to be unhappy with this sign?
1. I believe most strongly both that this sign is appropriate for a Christian institution, and that I have a right (indeed, an obligation) in my academic position to pose such a question.
2. I intend to keep this sign (or a copy) in my office window while I am a tenured faculty member. It is not my intention to be confrontational. The fact that some may disagree with the sign, or even may find it upsetting, does not lessen its value as a catalyst for significant discussion. It is my sense that this is what an academic institution is all about.
Peace, Paul
p.s. Villanova later removed any mention of the word PEACE from its Mission Statement.
June 20, 2008
Book Review on Quakers published in Journal for Peace & Justice Studies
Readers who would like some background information about Quakers might find helpful my review of Yount’s How the Quakers Invented America (published this month in the Journal for Peace & Justice Studies, v17, #1). I have copied it into Comments.
June 18, 2008
We got our economic stimulus check — sort of — well, some of it.
We recently recieved a check in the mail from the U.S. government. Only it wasn’t for the amount that an earlier postcard had indicated. Well, there was some small print that said it might be minus any amount that we owed the government. As readers of this blog already know, we are pacifists and war tax resisters because we cannot in good conscience pay for training and arming others to kill in our name (search my blog for more on this). So our check came up a few hundred dollars short of what was first promised. But this was no big surprise (sometimes they get the money, sometimes they don’t), and we follow our conscience in this not with certainty of the results (that is God’s will, not ours), but certain that we can not willingly cooperate with something that we believe supports such an evil. Note that we have nothing against taxes per se and would gladly pay our full amount if we could be assured that none of it would go for war. You can be certain that we will continue to be war tax resisters. We follow our conscience, not the calculations of the liklihood that government will or won’t get the money.
February 1, 2008
All people deserve an opportunity for a healthy and productive life.
1. There is an undeniable value to every human life.
All war is a crime against human life. “Human” life is defined by its distinctly human quality, and thus euthanasia and abortion are not acceptable if they destroy that human quality of life.
2. Every human life must be given adequate opportunity to develop.
Is it right that humans enter life with vastly different opportunities before them? Some are born rich, some poor. All humans have a right to personal property, a private life, safety, education, and health care. Once these needs have been met for all, those who have earned additional goods justly can be deserving of them. Humans are not equal but vary greatly in traits and talents; all must be given sufficient opportunity to develop their unique talents. It is natural that results will vary greatly, with some being more successful than others. There continues to be a basic value and protection of every human life, including those lives which are less successful. Inherited wealth, passed from those who are dead to the living who have not earned it, is a crime against the values of a just society. Property that is strictly personal property can be inherited.
3. The natural world is a gift to all humanity and thus individual humans cannot “own” it, to do with as they wish.
Humans cannot own or inherit the natural world. It is a gift we neither earned nor did anything to deserve. Individual humans cannot control the use of the water or the air or the land. Accumulations of land, minerals, forests, water and their immediate derivatives, beyond what is sufficient for one’s personal needs, is a crime against humanity and nature. All living things must be given their due respect.
These three basic values are a vision for the future and not a political or sociological blueprint for how they might occur. Human values require that we look ahead not in terms of years or decades or even lifetimes, but for centuries.
January 30, 2008
Unjust War and St. Augustine
Most people associate Unjust War Theory with Aquinas, but Christian thinking on this issue originated much earlier with St. Augustine. The current Iraq War is clearly unjust according to principles espoused by Aquinas and other Unjust War theorists such as Grotius. But what would Augustine have to say today? Although we cannot directly query him on the Iraq War today, his principles were meant to be timeless. When we see the vengence (e.g., execution of Saddam Hussein and threats of revenge on Osama Bin Laden) and lies (e.g., WMD) that characterize the current war, the war clearly does not represent a “benevolent severity” motivated by the “caritas” that Augustine requires. Nor was it ever declared by the proper authority, which is not a Bush “monarch” but our Constitution that requires that only Congress can declare war. All of the following text is taken directly from the references cited in parentheses: (more…)
December 7, 2007
Romney speaks of religion and politics in America (Dec 6, 2007)
Email comment submitted in response to a NYTimes column by David Brooks.
When Romney speaks of the American religious community, he in fact is referring to a particular religious community and thereby excludes many of the religious of America. He hardly speaks for me, a self-described Quaker pacifist revolutionary. Nor does he speak for millions of Americans of other faiths. As a principled member of a religious community, I find myself unable to recite the Pledge of Allegiance until that day comes when “liberty and justice for all” has indeed become the rule of the land. Only at that point could it be meaningful to consider the use of the phrase “under God” when speaking of this nation.